"Liverpool's fans record time for pursuing injustices..."

So you think that the Suarez verdict was an injustice then....interesting!

It's become crystal clear that LFCs legal advisor is, in fact, Coco The Clown.

posted 12 minutes ago

"Liverpool's fans record time for pursuing injustices..."

So you think that the Suarez verdict was an injustice then....interesting!

............

Only intresting if you don't understand sarcasm, and I believe you are not that stupid Billy.

comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335) posted 10 minutes ago

It's become crystal clear that LFCs legal advisor is, in fact, Coco The Clown.

...............

Maybe it was, in fact, our very own Billy.

You really have to feel for Suarez, he believes he's innocent (even though he accepted guilt along with his lawyer), lfc fans feel he's innocent, his manager feels he's innocent and the club feel he's innocent but they've refused to appeal the decision.

Makes no sense at all.

On a separate note, what happened to Suarez's claim that he called Evra what his team mates called him? Another unreliable statement from poor luis.

He's consistent though

Suarez has consistently lied about the whole affair, especially to his manager and by believing him, KK has looked like a t_it.

RBW

To be fair, both Suarez and Evra have changed their version of what happened!

Suarez changed his after seeing the video apparently...Evra changed his because he was using Italian as the reason for feeling offended!

Didn't the panel also decided that Suarez had called him negro a seventh time, due to the look on Evra's face!!! Yet Evra stated that at that particular time he does not recall being called it!!! How odd is that? I am not saying I know what happened, but some of the stuff that the panel came out with was iffy to say the least, and has led to this, i.e. still people are unsure as to what happened!

I fully expected to open that report and see some evidence of Suarez' guilt, it was disappointing to not see any...I expect you were disappointed too, not with the verdict, but the way that it was arrived upon...for me, such a serious issue should not have been decided upon by guesswork and probability, for me evidence should have been provided...that's just me though!

A double thumbs-up??

You must be really pushing for that last hook and a 400+ posts thread Billy.

Good luck!

Suarez changed his after seeing the video apparently...Evra changed his because he was using Italian as the reason for feeling offended!
***
you mean one is a deceitful liar that got found out by video evidence and the other misunderstood fully the abuse that was been barked at him as it was in an unfamiliar language?

RBW

Haha, unfamiliar language...really!

Evra translated for De Gea when he got to the club, Evra also was fluent enough to insult Suarez in Spanish!

Are you really suggesting that a man who can translate between Spanish and English and a man who can readily insult somebody in Spanish, does not understand Spanish? Have a word mate...

As for Suarez changing his evidence, the panel rightly stated that it would be difficult for anybody to remember the exact events from memory...Suarez' first statement was made from memory I think, he changed it after seeing the video, something Evra had already seen in a private meeting with the FA a few days after the incident...something which the FA and Evra failed to disclose to both the panel or Liverpool until the hearing was underway...that to me is fishy to say the least, but hey, that's just me!

I can insult people in 4 different languages Billy and I have also translated in Cantonese for some Chinese people concerning tickets on buses (two separate occasions no less).

I would not claim to understand everything said to me in any of those languages (even English depending on the accent!!).

diggler

I guess it depends on your understanding and each case would be different as to what you do or do not understand!

For me it is a bit far fetched that Evra can start the argument in Spanish, continue it in Spanish, and then claim that he did not know what was being said!

The whole problem here is the way that the case was decided imo...I know the panel used probability as the deciding factor, but to me that is not good enough in such a serious case. I was disappointed that no evidence was provided for the alleged abuse, no video evidence, no witnessess, nothing, nada, non, naw, nae, nya...

If the case had been decided how I imagine most people would have liked, then we wouldn't be having this debate as we would have facts, evidence etc that either disproved or proved Evra's claims...instead we have no facts, evidence etc...but still we have a verdict!

Seriously, if this was the other way around, I can guarantee (well not literally) that United fans would not be saying , 'oh well fair enough, he's guilty based on probability and that is fine!'

Billybob, it was an 8 game ban not a life sentence, every other case the FA has ever decided has been on the same burden of proof, but oh no, it should be different if it is a Liverpool player so the rules should be bent.

Ok to give you another example.

In my previous job I worked with mainly Polish people. Of course over time I started picking up bad phrases and words. My good drinking partner at the time would insist on me learning new ways to insult the girls but occasionally there would be phrases or words that some of the girls wouldnt recognise due to being from a different region.

So within this one country there were words that didnt exist in other places and phrases that could be taken for insulting or not depending on where the person you were talking to came from.

While French and Spanish are similar languages they are not the same especially when the Spanish being spoken is Spanish from another country where who knows what phrases/words are integrated in.

My point is that while Evra can maybe speak enough to translate for De Gea and to maybe have a bit of back and forth with Suarez, one slang term could mean that part of the dialogue is misunder/ orcompletelynotunderstood at all (and I say that from personal experience).

I take it they've given up on trying to find fault with the health and safety approach of reducing the FA cup allocation after advice from stakeholders concerned.

Even though this allocation is about 3000 more than what was given for the league match.

makes you wonder how the league match allocation was reduced then doesn't it.
Its obviously the safety of Liverpool fans that they are thinking about, not the United fans.

Erm... You deduce that how? Standing and blocking exits which would serve the away fans would impact health and safety for which fans? Home or away?

and what difference does it make to safety that its a cup game not a league game ?

It makes no difference, blocking exits and persistent standing means a reduced allocation.

I don't know what you're getting at Rojo.

If Suarez was up in front of the law rather than the FA, how far do you think the case would have got?
-----------------------
Probably the stupidist comment on here

The laws of this country do not include 'You must not verbally abuse another player on a footballfield referencing skin colour'

It's an FA rule of the sport, not National Law ffs

There is no probability about this.. Suarez admiited to using a term that is unacceptable on a British football field. There are no ifs and buts

If Rooney isn't allowed to say 'gp mark the negro on the far post' then niether should Suarez whether it's acceptable in his language or not

Should we allow players to dive all the time just bacause it is deemed more acceptable where they come from?

It's the same rule for everyone and so it should be. Suarez broke an FA rule, not a national law ffs

"The laws of this country do not include 'You must not verbally abuse another player on a footballfield referencing skin colour'"


I think you'll find they do. Ask John Terry.

comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461) posted 5 minutes ago

"The laws of this country do not include 'You must not verbally abuse another player on a footballfield referencing skin colour'"


I think you'll find they do. Ask John Terry.

--------------
I meant specifically like the are in the FA rile boof

The reason it wouldn't go far in a court of law is that it could easily be argued that no malicious intent was intended and it was nothing more than ignorance in the fact that the player used a term deemed acceptable in his own culture unbeknowing it wasn't acceptable over here

In FA rules, the law is specific and it was broken by Suarez.

Macca

I disagree. I think he would have been found guilty in a court of law. He admitted calling Evra a negro.

There was no lack of evidence. The fool should have kept quitet.

You said the laws of the country don't include racial abuse on the football field - and they clearly do.


"The Race Relations Act 1976

If a claim were to be brought before a court of England and Wales then the appropriate sections of the Race Relations Act would be cited. The Race Relations Act applies to racial abuse suffered throughout England and Wales and applies directly to all industries including football.

What are the problems with bringing such a case before the court?

In order for the player to be convicted of using the racist language it must be proven that he did in fact make these racist remarks during the match.

This looks like a difficult task as it is one players word against another’s as the other players on the pitch as well as the referee may not have heard the comments being uttered and considering the high profile nature of the match it is likely to assume that the other players would have been too focused on the task in hand to hear the comments.

However, given the nature of the high profile which football currently occupies it is likely that the incident was in fact captured by one of the many cameras used to televise the match. If this is the case then it could be used as evidence. "


Given the above - if the case had of been dealt with in a law court it is more than likely that Suarez would have been cleared as there was no direct evidence to prove his guilt.

comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)

posted 11 minutes ago

"The laws of this country do not include 'You must not verbally abuse another player on a footballfield referencing skin colour'"


I think you'll find they do. Ask John Terry.
================

John Terry was reported by the member of the public. If Anton had reported him, it would have been handled under the auspices of the FA.

The FA will have their day with JT once the CPS is through with him